CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 octobre 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sD37F5C3B { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCC611B7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } Published on 8 November 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 31870/20 Karol JECKO against Slovakia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 20 October 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern the applicants’ criminal conviction for abuse of official authority and acceptance of bribe. The evidence used in the criminal proceedings to convict them included audio-visual recordings from the applicants’ working premises obtained through police surveillance. Relying on Articles 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicants complained that the orders allowing the police surveillance had lacked fundamental identification details of the authority which had issued them, as well as any arguments justifying the necessity of the surveillance in respect of the criminal offences allegedly committed by them. They referred to two judgments of the Constitutional Court issued in other cases (III.   US   97/2012, III. US 490/2015), according to which the absence of identification details of the judge issuing surveillance orders rendered such orders unlawful. The applicants further claimed that they had never been served with the surveillance orders and had not been allowed to make copies of them from the file.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ rights guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the secret surveillance conducted by the police? In particular, did the orders of 14 September 2008 authorising the applicants’ secret surveillance meet the requirements of that provision (see Hambardzumyan v. Armenia , no. 43478/11, §§ 59-68, 5 December 2019?   2.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against them, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the admission of the results of their secret surveillance as evidence compatible with the requirements of that provision (see Bykov v. Russia [GC], no. 4378/02, §§ 88/93, 10 March 2009)?   3.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 31870/20 Jecko v.   Slovakia 17/07/2020 Karol JECKO 1966 Košice Slovak Zoltán PERHÁCS 2. 31896/20 Csonka v.   Slovakia 17/07/2020 Tibor CSONKA 1964 Boťany Slovak Zoltán PERHÁCS 3. 31903/20 Slivka v.   Slovakia 17/07/2020 Milan SLIVKA 1969 Biel Slovak Zoltán PERHÁCS